Briefing Initial Appraisal of a European Commission Impact Assessment Multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea stocks of cod, herring and sprat Impact Assessment (SWD (2014) 291, SWD (2014) 290 (summary)) of a Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 (COM (2014) 614) Background This note seeks to provide an initial analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the European Commission's Impact Assessment (IA) accompanying the above proposal, submitted on 6 October 2014. The main fisheries of the Baltic Sea region target cod, herring and sprat. While a management plan for the Baltic Sea cod stocks has been in place since 2007, stocks of herring and sprat are not yet covered. The principal aim of fisheries management under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is to ensure high long-term fishing yields for all stocks by 2015 where possible, and at the latest by 2020. This is referred to as maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 1 According to the scientific advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the current rates of exploitation of some of the cod, herring, and sprat stocks are not consistent with achieving maximum sustainable yield (Explanatory memorandum, p. 2). In order to achieve long term sustainability of fisheries, several approaches can be followed, including in particular the precautionary approach and the approach of MSY. The precautionary approach is intended to ensure that each fish stock is kept above a minimum stock size, known as precautionary biomass. In contrast, the MSY is normally defined in terms of the fish removed by fishing, which is known as fishing mortality (IA, p. 13). The amounts of fish allowed to be caught are determined by the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) the maximum biomass of fish that can be caught from a given stock in a given year (IA, p. 8). The idea behind the initiative to bring cod, herring and sprat stocks under one management plan stems from the inter-dependence of these stocks. For example, the IA explains that cod are predating on sprat, and to a lesser extent, herring, and that herring and sprat sometimes feed on the eggs of cod. The management of fisheries for cod can have an impact on fishing opportunities for sprat and herring, and vice versa (IA, p. 15). Decisions on TAC for fish stocks which are not subject to a management plan are politically negotiated every year, and, according to the Impact Assessment Board s first opinion on the draft IA, are typically a compromise between the level advised by the scientists for stock conservation, and the higher level desired by the fishing interests. 1 European Commission, Fisheries, Managing fish stocks. EPRS European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Laura Zandersone Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit European Parliament PE 528.811
The Proposal was originally prepared in 2012, but could not be presented because of two major legislative issues: the inter-institutional deadlock between the European Parliament and Council concerning paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 43 of the Treaty, and the reform of the CFP. Once Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy had been adopted, requiring the creation of multiannual plans to establish quantifiable targets in terms of fishing mortality and/or spawning biomass, it was possible to present the current proposal again. In the light of these developments, the management plan and the accompanying impact assessment have been updated accordingly (IA, p. 9). Problem definition The IA identifies two main problems with the current management regime: (1) The fishing mortality consistent with MSY can often be substantially lower than the current fishing mortality on a given stock. (IA, p. 25) (2) In some cases TACs have been exceeded so that catches have been much greater than intended. This has contributed to fishing mortality remaining above target values, and relatively low stock sizes, leading to reduced yields and income. (IA, p. 26) Both problems actually seem to describe a similar phenomenon: excessive fishing mortality, which is not compatible with the idea of long-term sustainable fisheries management. The IA briefly touches upon possible drivers of the problems (for example, the tendency to maximise the catch every year; political negotiations resulting in higher TACs; fishermen switching from cod to target pelagic stocks, and increased predation on sprat by cod), but no further information is given to describe the problems in more detail. The IA considers that the current management plan for cod is effective and that mortality of stocks has decreased in recent years (IA, p. 26). There is, however, no reference to any data supporting this assertion. Objectives of the legislative proposal According to its Explanatory Memorandum, the general objective of the proposal is to establish a management plan for the Baltic stocks of cod, herring and sprat. The IA describes it as being to ensure sustainable exploitation of stocks at levels that will deliver the highest possible long term yields with a low probability that the stocks will move outside of safe precautionary levels (IA, p. 31). This echoes Article 2 of the CFP regulation which states that a general objective is to ensure that the conservation status of all Baltic stocks is favourable and within safe biological limits in order to provide for an environmentally sustainable fishery in the long-term. The IA describes other general CFP objectives, such as those in the socio-economic area, as well as integration of environmental legislation; however, it is not clear from the IA how these objectives are linked to the general objective of the proposal. More specific objectives for the Baltic stocks are expressed with reference to safe levels of fishing mortality for the stocks of each of the three species (IA, p. 31-32). Range of options considered The IA describes three options, one of which is the baseline scenario. Option 1 Baseline scenario: Continuation of existing management plan for cod, no management plan for herring or sprat. TACs for the two Baltic cod stocks would continue to be set according to the existing management plan, and TACs for the sprat and herring stocks would continue to be set on an ad hoc, annual 2
basis. According to the IA, it is particularly difficult to predict how the stocks of herring and sprat are likely to develop under the baseline scenario. Not only are they subject to natural variation in growth and recruitment, there are also no rules in place to establish TACs each year. As a result, the TAC which will apply to each stock is effectively unpredictable (IA, p. 29). Option 2 Cod, herring and sprat stocks under management plan approach A. Approach A promotes a lower fishing mortality rate (IA Table 5.2.1, p. 34). For example, target fishing mortality for Eastern Baltic cod stock and Central Baltic herring under this approach is 0.30 and 0.16 per cent respectively. Option 3 Cod, herring and sprat stocks under management plan approach B. Approach B promotes a higher fishing mortality rate (IA Table 5.2.2, p. 35). For example, target fishing mortality for Eastern Baltic cod stock and Central Baltic herring under this approach is 0.45 and 0.26 per cent respectively. The higher fishing mortality rate is proposed as a result of multi-species evaluations used to investigate possible fishing mortality targets for Eastern Baltic cod, sprat and central Baltic herring which showed that it might be possible to set higher target fishing mortalities for these stocks as a result of interactions between them (IA, p. 34). The IA clearly states that options 2 and 3 should be considered as initial approaches to management plans, rather than specific plans for themselves (IA, p. 33). Scope of the Impact Assessment For each of the options, the IA analyses the economic impact and impact on fisheries management, the environmental impacts and the social impacts, based on advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STEFC) 2 (IA, p. 35). The economic impact and impact on fisheries management regarding the status quo situation described under Option 1 include the risk of ineffective use of human and financial resources in the Member States if the cod management plan, which includes restrictions on annual fishing effort as a control measure should continue (IA, p. 17). This system was used to improve misreporting of catches in order to ensure proper stock conservation. According to scientists, reporting of catches has considerably improved and such a system has become redundant. The IA does not mention if any alternative measure might nevertheless be needed in order to ensure that this situation remains satisfactory. Also, unnecessary burden is created by the requirement of prior-notification as much as four hours before arrival in port, as the fishing grounds in the Baltic sea are nearer to the ports of landing (IA, p. 36). Regarding Options 2 and 3, the system of setting annual TACs would provide the pelagic fishing sector with better predictability of catches, and ensure that the international commitment to achieve MSY by 2015 is met (IA, p. 36). The processing industry is interested in stability of supply, and in the longer perspective Option 2 is seen as more attractive than Option 3, which provides for higher mortality rates (IA, p. 36). Under both options 2 and 3 [T]he administrative burden on Member States is reduced due to abolishment of fishing effort regime and of the catch monitoring at area level. (IA, p. 36) The environmental impact described is mainly related to the biological interactions of the stocks concerned. Under option 2, the reduction in the overall amount of fishing would also imply a reduction in emissions from vessel engines (IA, p. 37). Social impacts are mainly described as negligible under all three options, as the greatest number of people (69 per cent) and vessels (77 per cent) are employed in inshore fisheries, which mainly depend on species other than the ones considered in the proposal (IA, p. 37-38). The IA does not explain why the proposed 2 The Members of the STECF are nominated by the Commission from highly qualified scientific experts having competence in these fields. 3
management plan includes only those species of fish, and no other, especially protected species. The IA claims that Options 2 and 3 could be beneficial to employment due to increased stability of catches (IA, p. 38). Overall, it claims that the differences in terms of impact between Options 2 and 3 are relatively small, although there may be a small increase in the risk of adverse environmental impacts with Option 3 (IA, p. 41). The preferred option, after the consultation with stakeholders and Member States, is Option 2 (IA, p. 41). Subsidiarity / proportionality According to Article 3.1(d) of the TFEU, the Union has exclusive competence in the area of conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. The subsidiarity principle does not therefore apply. Budgetary or public finance implications The IA does not provide any information about implications for the EU budget. It briefly mentions that under Options 2 and 3 the administrative burden on Member States would be eased due to reduced necessity for controls of misreporting of catches, but does not provide any further detail. SME test / Competitiveness The IA does not provide an SME test in view of burdens imposed on SMEs, although the IA Board stresses in both its opinions that particular attention should be paid to the effects of the options on SMEs and micro entities. This recommendation does not seem to have been followed up. The IA mentions that fishermen and the processing industry are the stakeholders that will be affected, but does not specify whether there are any SMEs among them and, if so, how they would be affected. Simplification and other regulatory implications According to the Executive Summary, [T]he abolishment of fishing effort system and of requirement of single area fishing will simplify the legislative environment and reduce administrative burden on MS and industry. (Executive Summary, p. 3) The Proposal would replace two previous proposals which appear on the Commission s list of withdrawals or modifications of pending proposals 2015 3 : the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (2012/0077/COD), and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 for the conservation of fishery through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound (2012/0285/COD). It would also lead to the repealing of the existing Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007. However, the extent to which it covers all elements of that legislation, notably monitoring requirements, is not explained. It should be noted in this respect that certain management and technical measures are to be decided by delegated acts according to the new Proposal. 3 Annex II of Commission Work Programme 2015. 4
Relations with third countries On a general level, the EU is a signatory to the Johannesburg Declaration made at the [UN] World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. With regard to fisheries, this includes a commitment to: Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015 (IA, p. 14). The Commission relied on the scientific advice of ICES in the preparation of the IA and the proposal. According to the IA, [M]embers of the ICES community now include all coastal states bordering the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea. ICES also has an institutionalised relationship with the European Commission, which is a major customer for the ICES scientific advice on fisheries management (IA, p. 10). There is no explicit reference in the IA to any impacts on third countries. Quality of data, research and analysis The IA is based on analyses of the STECF 4 expert group s report on multi-species management plans for the Baltic (IA, p. 32). Furthermore, the Commission has used scientific advice from ICES, and has also involved the Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council (BSRAC) in its preparation meetings (IA, p. 10). The IA includes a relatively comprehensive compilation of data on the economic value of catches, as well as on the number of employees involved in the fisheries of cod, herring and sprat; however, this data is not integrated in the description of policy options and their impacts. The general analysis appears to be logical but detailed explanations are scarce. Despite being an update of the 2012 version of the IA, a number of technical and presentational weaknesses remain. For example, the page numbering was initially missing; there is no table of contents, and some footnotes are inconsistent or absent. Stakeholder consultation The IA explains that the consultation took the form of an established procedure for the evaluation of long term management plans of fish stocks: stage 1 retrospective evaluation and stage 2 possible options for a replacement plan and their possible impacts (IA, p. 10-11). Contributors to this procedure were STECF, ICES, and the Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council (BSRAC) (IA, p. 9-10). STEFC includes fisheries scientists and also experts from other areas, such as economics and social sciences (IA, p. 10). Regional Advisory Councils consist of representatives of the fisheries sector and other interest groups affected by CFP, in the case of the Baltic Sea, this also includes the processing sector, inshore and offshore capture sectors, and workers organisations (IA, p. 10). Taking this into account, it can be considered that the main stakeholders the fishing industry, including the catching and processing sector (IA, p. 26) have been consulted, especially as the decision for a new management plan was taken at the BALTFISH regional forum, involving Member States and stakeholders (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 6). The IA does not, however, provide any detailed breakdown or summary of the individual opinions expressed during the stakeholder consultation in the BSRAC. The BSRAC requested that the management plan should be adaptive so that aspects of the plan can be changed in the light of improved scientific understanding or changing environmental conditions (IA, p. 33). This request seems to have been taken into account in both the IA and the Proposal. 4 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) is established by Council Regulation (EC) No 371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. 5
Monitoring and evaluation The IA lists the following indicators for monitoring achievement of the objectives of the management plan for Baltic fish stocks: catch data ( both industrial and non-industrial), sampling programmes for industrial landings, and indices of stock abundance conducted by research vessels (IA, p. 40). Member States and Regional Advisory Councils are responsible for monitoring these indicators and detecting deficiencies in operation of the plan (IA, p. 40). The IA also says that there will be a need to keep the targets and conservation reference points for these stocks under review in the light of environmental conditions and scientific advice (IA, p. 41). Article 14 of the Proposal provides that six years after entry into force of the plan and every six years thereafter, the Commission shall ensure an evaluation of the impact. Commission Impact Assessment Board The Commission s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) delivered its first opinion on a draft version of the IA dated 11 May 2012, indicating several serious shortcomings which needed improvement. These recommendations were apparently only partially addressed in the revision process, as three of them are repeated as shortcomings in the IAB s second opinion, published in October 2012, which required further work to be done on three aspects: The IA should provide clearer policy context, and a better structured problem definition. The baseline scenario should also be better developed. The options should be further clarified. The analysis of impacts should be furthered. They should include the impact on SMEs and the administrative and compliance costs of the different options. (IA, p. 12, 13) In response to the IAB opinion, the revised IA includes a glossary; a detailed description of the DG MARE consultation process; more detail on the policy context and problem definition, and a better explanation of how the various options were identified. The revised IA also includes a chapter providing an assessment of how stakeholders are affected. (IA, p. 13) As mentioned earlier, the SME aspect is still not explicitly addressed and there are no specific indications of the administrative and compliance costs of the different options. Coherence between the Commission's legislative proposal and IA The IA explains that the idea behind the current initiative is to bring stocks of cod, herring and sprat under one management plan in order to take into account the interactions among these species (IA, p. 15). On this base, the IA and the proposal seem to correspond. However, the proposal also includes specific conservation measures for other types of fish (place, flounder, turbot, brill), as well as technical and control measures, none of which are analysed in the IA While the IA sets out the existing legal provisions regarding conservation of species, as well as technical and control measures, it does not provide any details about the impacts of those measures; nor are they part of the options considered. The IA explains that control measures for the Baltic Sea cod fisheries are set out in the Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 6
establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (2012/0236/COD) 5, but it is not clear how this Regulation will interact with the proposed new legislation. Conclusions The impact assessment has been prepared in line with the established procedure of DG MARE for the evaluation of fish stock management plans. The analysis of specific impacts remains rather general and both this and the problem definition could usefully have been strengthened and assessed in more detail. The language used is clear and accessible. Stakeholder consultation appears to have been thorough, although a breakdown of results would have been helpful. The question of impacts on SMEs, in particular, might merit further attention. This note, prepared by the Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) of the European Parliament, analyses whether the principal criteria laid down in the Commission s own Impact Assessment Guidelines, as well as additional factors identified by the Parliament in its Impact Assessment Handbook, appear to be met by the IA. It does not attempt to deal with the substance of the proposal. It is drafted for informational and background purposes to assist the relevant parliamentary committee(s) and Members more widely in their work. This document is also available on the internet at: www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studies.html To contact the Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit, please e-mail: impa-secretariat@ep.europa.eu Manuscript completed in January 2015. Brussels European Union, 2015. The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not represent an official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation of this document for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. 5 Reference details of this regulation are missing in the IA. 7